NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

later. When such conflict occurs, the Court strikes a balance in order to establish the pre-eminence of one right over the other. At the same time, there is no pre-established hierarchy of rights and values guaranteed by the Convention. Such a hierarchy would contravene all international treaties that provide for the equality of rights and do not allow permanent limitations on the exercise of one right, since this would be similar to a denial of that right. 805 2.6.1.1 Three components of the right to freedom of expression Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Convention provides for three components of the right to freedom of expression: 1) freedom to hold opinions; 2) freedom to impart information and ideas; and 3) freedom to receive information and ideas . 806 Let us have a look at these components in relation to Article 34 NGOs. Freedom to hold opinions Freedom to hold opinions 807 enjoys an almost absolute protection. The possible restrictions set forth in paragraph 2 of this Article and this list is limited. 808 States must not allow distinctions to operate between persons holding one opinion or another. A good example is the separation of church and state principle. 809 Though the Convention promotes the free manifestation of religion, no one can be forced to become a follower of an exact religious group. In this context, the Court draws to the attention of the CoE member states the distinction between facts and opinions. 810 It stated that the existence of facts (information) can be demonstrated, whereas the truth of value judgments (opinions) does not need to be proved. Regarding the value judgments, the requirement of proof is impossible to fulfil and infringes the freedom of opinion itself. 811 The complete absence of proof for a statement of fact or of any factual basis for a value judgment has often led the Court to find that there was no violation of Article 10 of the Convention. 812 In general, the Court’s approach to factual basis vary from case to case. The need to provide it is less stringent where the facts are already known to the public. 813 807 SAKULIN, W. Trademark Protection and Freedom of Expression: An Inquiry Into the Conflict Between Trademark Rights and Freedom of Expression Under European Law . Kluwer Law International, 2010, p. 112. 808 TYMOFEYEVA, A. Omezení práva… , cited above, p. 79. 809 Separation of Church and State .The Boisi Center Papers on Religion in the United States (online). URL: accessed 1 March 2015. 810 SMET, S. Freedom of Expression and the Right to Reputation: Human Rights in Conflict. Am. U. Int’l L. Rev. Vol. 26:1, p. 214. 811 Lingens v. Austria , 8 July 1986, Series a no. 103. 812 Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria , no. 36207/03, 14 February 2008. 813 Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlags GmbH v. Austria , no. 58547/00, 27 October 2005. 805 MACOVEI, 2004, cited above, p. 21. 806 Ibid ., p. 8.

151